An honest account of how boards repeatedly underinvest in CEO succession planning, what it costs them when they do, and what proactive planning actually looks like in practice.
In This Article
CEO succession is one of the most important responsibilities a board carries. It is also one of the most consistently deferred. Research from Spencer Stuart, Russell Reynolds, and multiple governance organisations converges on the same finding: the majority of UK boards have inadequate succession plans in place, and most CEO appointments are preceded by a period of uncertainty, urgency, or outright crisis that significantly impairs the quality of the outcome. The reasons are understandable. The solution is available. The failure to act on it is almost entirely a function of the difficulty of the conversation, not the difficulty of the task.
There are a small number of reliable indicators that a board has left CEO succession planning too late. The first is the absence of a current, written succession plan that names internal candidates, identifies development gaps, and specifies the external search brief that would be activated in a departure scenario. Many boards have an informal understanding that "x could probably step up" — this is not a succession plan.
The second indicator is incumbent CEO tenure approaching seven to ten years without a formal refresh of the succession discussion. Long-serving CEOs are often both the organisation's greatest strategic asset and the most significant source of succession risk. Boards frequently avoid the conversation for fear of signalling uncertainty to the CEO or the market.
The third indicator is a single internal candidate who everyone privately acknowledges is not quite ready, or not quite right, but who boards are reluctant to assess honestly. Succession discussions that lack genuine candour — where the internal candidate is discussed in terms of their potential rather than their realistic fit — are not functional succession planning.
The fourth, and most alarming, indicator is a board that has not had a formal succession discussion with the search committee in the past twelve months. For any organisation above a certain scale, the CEO succession conversation should be a standing item on the board's annual governance calendar, not an ad hoc discussion triggered by a resignation.
The reasons boards defer CEO succession planning are well documented and largely psychological rather than structural. The most common is the discomfort of conducting a conversation about the replacement of a sitting CEO in the CEO's presence — or at all, when the CEO does not know it is happening. This discomfort is legitimate: CEO succession discussions, if they become known to the incumbent, can destabilise the relationship between the board and the CEO, damage the incumbent's authority externally, and in some cases accelerate the departure they were meant to plan for.
The second reason is a form of organisational optimism — the assumption that the current CEO will remain for longer than they actually do. The average tenure of a FTSE 100 CEO has fallen significantly over the past decade, yet boards consistently underestimate departure risk. Retirement, unexpected health events, external opportunity, or board-CEO relationship breakdown — any of these can trigger a CEO departure with little warning.
The third reason is that succession planning feels uncomfortable when there is no obvious internal candidate, because the absence of a strong internal successor makes the board's own talent development performance visible and potentially critical. Boards that have not invested in second-tier leadership development find succession planning particularly uncomfortable because it highlights a failure that predates the immediate problem.
Finally, some boards conflate succession planning with triggering a search. They resist the former because they fear the latter — they are not ready to contemplate who might replace the current CEO, so they avoid the entire conversation. This conflation is a mistake: succession planning is intelligence-gathering and contingency preparation, not a search activation.
Effective CEO succession planning has three components: internal candidate development, external market intelligence, and search brief preparation. All three should be maintained continuously, refreshed annually, and subject to formal board review at least once per year.
Internal candidate development means identifying the two or three most credible internal successors, assessing them honestly against the CEO profile, and building a development programme designed to close specific gaps. This requires candid assessment — ideally involving external executive assessment — of where each candidate is today and what they would need to demonstrate over the next one to three years to be considered seriously for the CEO role. The programme should be visible to the candidates concerned; most strong internal successors know they are being considered, and opacity about the process breeds cynicism.
External market intelligence means having a current view of the available external candidate pool — who the most credible external successors would be, what their current situations are, and how they are regarded in the market. Retained search firms will conduct this market mapping as a discrete, confidential exercise, providing the board with a current, graded view of the external landscape without triggering any candidate approaches. This intelligence should be refreshed every 12–18 months.
Search brief preparation means having a detailed brief ready to activate within 48 hours of an unexpected CEO departure. This includes role specification, candidate profile, compensation range, search firm mandate, and board decision process. Most boards do not have this documentation prepared; those that do reduce the average time from departure to appointment by four to six weeks in emergency scenarios.
When CEO succession is not planned and a departure occurs unexpectedly, the cost premium on the subsequent search is substantial and multidimensional. Direct search cost increases by 10%–20% in emergency scenarios — firms charge a premium for the expedited commitment and the capacity displacement involved in reprioritising other client work.
Process quality decreases materially when urgency drives the timeline. The most important decisions in executive search — building a comprehensive longlist, conducting thorough assessment, taking time to explore the candidate's motivations and reservations — all require time that an emergency search does not allow. The result is a shortlisting process that is shallower, an offer that is made with less certainty, and a risk of appointment failure that is measurably higher.
The reputational and operational consequences of CEO departure without a prepared succession plan are also significant. Boards that are visibly unprepared for leadership transitions communicate fragility to investors, key customers, and the talent market. The interim period — whether covered by an executive chair, a COO step-up, or an external interim — carries its own costs: interim fees of £5,000–£15,000 per day for a credible CEO interim, the distraction of the board, and the operational uncertainty that comes with any leadership vacuum.
Research suggests that organisations that conduct emergency CEO searches — without prior succession planning — take on average four to six weeks longer to complete the appointment, pay 15%–25% above the compensation that was in their original thinking, and have materially higher rates of appointment failure within 18 months.
The first step for any board that acknowledges its succession planning is inadequate is not to commission a search or to assess internal candidates — it is to hold a formal board discussion, without the CEO present, that addresses three questions: who is our most credible internal successor, what would a strong external successor look like, and what would we do in the next 48 hours if the CEO resigned today?
The output of this discussion should be a document — a succession planning brief — that captures the board's current thinking and identifies the gaps in their preparation. This document is not a public document, not a board paper in the conventional sense, and should be held by the chair and the nomination committee with appropriate discretion.
The second step is to engage a retained executive search firm to conduct an external market mapping exercise — not a search, but a confidential scan of the external candidate landscape that gives the board a current view of who exists, what they look like, and what it would take to engage them. This exercise costs less than a full retained search and provides intelligence that fundamentally changes the quality of the board's succession conversation.
The third step is to implement a structured internal development programme for identified internal candidates, with clear milestones, honest feedback, and a process for reviewing progress annually. The best succession plans are dynamic, not static — they evolve as candidates develop, the strategy shifts, and the external market changes.
Related Reading